LAWS(MPH)-1999-11-59

MOHAMMAD IQBAL SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On November 30, 1999
Mohammad Iqbal Sheikh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE record has been called for perusal so as to avoid the possibility of delay in completion of the trial.

(2.) SHRI Kutumble placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Rajdeo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1998 SC 3281 wherein the Supreme Court held that -

(3.) IN view of those two judgments of the Supreme Court and for purpose of securing unobstructed clean flow of administration of justice, this court finds necessary to give some directions to the trial court so as to avoid the delay in deciding the criminal cases which revolve around the provisions of Art. 21 of Indian Constitution. None can have a debate that it is the right of the accused to get the speedy trial and the justice as guaranted by Art. 21 of Indian Constitution. But unfortunately, the atmosphere which is prelevant in the subordinate courts is quite indifferent and full of lethargy till the charge is framed. It is sorrowful affair that after the charge sheet has been filed against the accused, neither prosecution nor the accused bother for early hearing of the trial. The presiding officer is also quite indifferent to this aspect. Some days go wasted and no action is taken so far as framing of the charge is concerned and setting the trial to prosecution by examining the witnesses and recording the evidence. The court, the accused and prosecution counsel engage themselves in small bouts on petty matters including the prayer for adjournments and opposition to the said prayer. Days pass away and on one fine morning of the day, the trigger starts and the charge framed against the accused. Till that time, the case is kept in doldrums and wooden or rusty iron boxes being stored and lying idle there, waiting for its turn to come to the stage of trial. Even after the charge is framed, the prosecution does not bother to keep the witnesses present within time on many occasions. The olden days have been forgotton, when at the time of hearing of each and every sessions case, the investigating officer used to be present right from the day one till the argument could be heard, with the case diary. All witnesses used to be summoned and kept present and the investigating officer used to be present for the purpose of giving necessary instructions to the public prosecutor right from day one. Same story used to be in trial court. Now a days, hardly the public prosecutor or additional public prosecutor gets the opportunity of seeing the face of investigating officer at day one of the trial for giving instructions to him and assisting him for the purpose of progress of the trial. The police department unfortunately has forgotton this important duty and police officers have forgotton that it is equally important for them to attend the courts and the cases investigated by such investigating officers. Presence of witnesses is not procured. No efforts are made for bringing the witnesses to the court. The summonses are returned or even not returned. The summons get the endorsemens on their from a casual attitude constable who endorses that whenever he visited the house of the witnesses, they were not available for him. Many endorsements speak that the person went to the house of the witness to serve the summons but was unable to trace the person on whom the summon was to be served. The same is the case for the purpose of procuring presence of the accused who jumps the bail. The endorsement indicates in strange manner that when the police officer or police constable had visited the house of the accused, he was not found there. No efforts are made for the purpose of tracing him, finding him and producing him before the court.